Another RF streak may be broken on Sunday [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Another RF streak may be broken on Sunday

Manila ESQ
06-04-2010, 08:56 PM
Roger Federer has either won the GS title or lost to the eventual champion since RG 2003 when he lost to Guga.

If Rafa wins RG 2010, this streak will be broken.

TheMightyFed
06-04-2010, 09:11 PM
Guga loss was in 2004

coonster14
06-04-2010, 10:43 PM
looks like the streak will be broken on sunday.

poor fed, so many streaks coming to an end for him...it was only a matter of time.

Certinfy
06-04-2010, 10:47 PM
Soderling won't lose to Rafa.

ApproachShot
06-04-2010, 10:58 PM
Yes, I believe the streak is an Open Era record as well.

BlueSwan
06-04-2010, 11:19 PM
This is one RF streak that I'd love to see die, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen.

nanoman
06-04-2010, 11:42 PM
If we apply Froglogic, does this streak make Federer a worse player. Surely, it must be better to lose to clowns than to eventual champions.

2003
06-05-2010, 01:00 AM
The streak would stretch back further to September 2003 if Burger Shambian wasn't such a choking bitch :o

Mjau!
06-05-2010, 01:06 AM
The streak would stretch back further to September 2003 if Burger Shambian wasn't such a choking bitch :o

I don't see how that would change the outcome of the 2004 French Open... :unsure:

froghop
06-05-2010, 02:46 AM
If we apply Froglogic, does this streak make Federer a worse player. Surely, it must be better to lose to clowns than to eventual champions.

Well truth be told, this is how Frog Logic would apply in view of the unexpected Federer loss to Soderling: It is of course better to go deeper in a Grand Slam. But stopping short of the finals is good for Federer. He would lose anyways to Nadal. The record would then by 2-6. A win rate of 25% in GS finals against your stiffest opponent is not what you would consider GOAT. He has achieved all the numbers necessary. There's no need to pad it anymore. Right now, it's about damage control. No more defeats to Nadal, esp. in GS finals. That should be his sole focus. If he's going to face Nadal, best be in the USO or Wimby finals where he might stand a ghost of a chance to win. So losing to Soderman was good for his legacy. He need not add anymore to his lofty resume, but if only to rectify whatever he can against Nadal.

I will say these two things:

- if Soda beats Nadal on Sunday, he is a GREATER RG champion than Federer - remember - champion is about winning - Soda's record would be 50% in the finals vs. Federer's subpar performance in the finals. Less is more - you've heard that from Frog before

- if Nadal continues to go on a tear and finish with say 12 GS when he's done in his career, but without a nemesis, he would be considered among the GOAT candidates, if not THE GOAT.

green25814
06-05-2010, 02:51 AM
If we apply Froglogic, does this streak make Federer a worse player. Surely, it must be better to lose to clowns than to eventual champions.

:spit: Of course.

green25814
06-05-2010, 02:52 AM
Well truth be told, this is how Frog Logic would apply in view of the unexpected Federer loss to Soderling: It is of course better to go deeper in a Grand Slam. But stopping short of the finals is good for Federer. He would lose anyways to Nadal. The record would then by 2-6. A win rate of 25% in GS finals against your stiffest opponent is not what you would consider GOAT. He has achieved all the numbers necessary. There's no need to pad it anymore. Right now, it's about damage control. No more defeats to Nadal, esp. in GS finals. That should be his sole focus. If he's going to face Nadal, best be in the USO or Wimby finals where he might stand a ghost of a chance to win. So losing to Soderman was good for his legacy. He need not add anymore to his lofty resume, but if only to rectify whatever he can against Nadal.

I will say these two things:

- if Soda beats Nadal on Sunday, he is a GREATER RG champion than Federer - remember - champion is about winning - Soda's record would be 50% in the finals vs. Federer's subpar performance in the finals. Less is more - you've heard that from Frog before

- if Nadal continues to go on a tear and finish with say 12 GS when he's done in his career, but without a nemesis, he would be considered among the GOAT candidates, if not THE GOAT.

He HAS nemesis'. And they are bigger clowns than Fed's nemesis' for the most part.

For the LAST TIME. Its about styles clashing here, and it doesn't prove all that much. Much of tennis is about stylistic match ups. As it happens, Nadal's game works perfectly against Federer. It doesn't make him a better player however.

mark73
06-05-2010, 03:08 AM
He HAS nemesis'. And they are bigger clowns than Fed's nemesis' for the most part.

For the LAST TIME. Its about styles clashing here, and it doesn't prove all that much. Much of tennis is about stylistic match ups. As it happens, Nadal's game works perfectly against Federer. It doesn't make him a better player however.

I think hes joking. Frog logic? Just a joker, ignore him. I think at first he really believed what he said in the sampras thread, but after all the knockdown arguments and him talking about frog logic, he knew he was incorrect. Now hes just being goofy.

froghop
06-05-2010, 03:50 AM
I think hes joking. Frog logic? Just a joker, ignore him. I think at first he really believed what he said in the sampras thread, but after all the knockdown arguments and him talking about frog logic, he knew he was incorrect. Now hes just being goofy.

I've always stood by what I said in that thread. The knockdown arguments? I've answered every one of them and none you folks were able to take down the argument. "He knew he was incorrect"? LOL. I knew you were the master baiter when you went fishing last summer - don't make claims you know nothing about. I know what I'm correct about and not correct about. I stopped posting because no one could refute the argument. It had nothing to do with being correct or not.

In the GOAT debate, it's a matter of the criteria you set. To most, it's mostly about the numbers and the need to win a GS on every surface. That's not the only set of criteria, nor is it the best set of criteria.

froghop
06-05-2010, 03:59 AM
He HAS nemesis'. And they are bigger clowns than Fed's nemesis' for the most part.

For the LAST TIME. Its about styles clashing here, and it doesn't prove all that much. Much of tennis is about stylistic match ups. As it happens, Nadal's game works perfectly against Federer. It doesn't make him a better player however.

Federer has one nemesis. It's singular not plural. If you say Nadal has nemesis (or nemeses) - I'll be interested to hear for you who they are. And please don't bring up random floaters who he might have lost to from time to time. Someone preferably in the top ten who you can say has consistently beaten him, in a similar manner by which he beats Federer.

On match ups: it's all part of the game. Just because Nadal is a bad match up for Federer does not excuse Federer of being owned by Nadal. Isn't that similar to Sampras not mastering clay surface - if you can say Federer cannot master the game that Nadal brings to the table.

green25814
06-05-2010, 04:01 AM
I've always stood by what I said in that thread. The knockdown arguments? I've answered every one of them and none you folks were able to take down the argument. "He knew he was incorrect"? LOL. I knew you were the master baiter when you went fishing last summer - don't make claims you know nothing about. I know what I'm correct about and not correct about. I stopped posting because no one could refute the argument. It had nothing to do with being correct or not.

In the GOAT debate, it's a matter of the criteria you set. To most, it's mostly about the numbers and the need to win a GS on every surface. That's not the only set of criteria, nor is it the best set of criteria.

Either your a complete moron, or a troll. Either should be banned imo.

froghop
06-05-2010, 04:16 AM
Either your a complete moron, or a troll. Either should be banned imo.

No one really care what you think or what I think. Having an opinion isn't a bad thing. And it is especially a good thing when it's unconventional. I won't call you MORON just because you're green, the predominat color of frogs. But more so because I've got more class than you.

green25814
06-05-2010, 04:42 AM
No one really care what you think or what I think. Having an opinion isn't a bad thing. And it is especially a good thing when it's unconventional. I won't call you MORON just because you're green, the predominat color of frogs. But more so because I've got more class than you.

I don't believe someone with an opinion as ridiculous as yours would go round shouting it. Pretty sure your just trying to wind people up.

gusavo
06-05-2010, 05:20 AM
I've always stood by what I said in that thread. The knockdown arguments? I've answered every one of them and none you folks were able to take down the argument.
lie, you answered nothing, just trash comments and making up your own rules. you didnt answer me either

froghop
06-05-2010, 06:04 AM
I've answered you more than once. Go back and read it. And on tennis opinions - they are just that. Yours opinions are really quite ridiculous to me too, but they sit well with you. So I just accept your opinions as your own and try hard not to use insults at you.

Clydey
06-05-2010, 12:36 PM
I just googled 'Burger Shambian'. I wondered why the fuck I hadn't heard of him.

Time to wake up, James.

gusavo
06-06-2010, 06:20 AM
I've answered you more than once. Go back and read it. And on tennis opinions - they are just that. Yours opinions are really quite ridiculous to me too, but they sit well with you. So I just accept your opinions as your own and try hard not to use insults at you.
thats cause youre rediculously inconsistent, now answer my latest post.

bokehlicious
06-06-2010, 08:47 AM
poor fed, so many streaks coming to an end for him...it was only a matter of time.

Every streak comes to an end at a point, why "poor Fed"? :confused: He'll be "poor Fed" the day those records get broken :shrug: he can still sleep quietly for some time :)